2004 (12) TMI 189 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Jurisdictional error in filing appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) by an unauthorized officer.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, the applicants contended that an error apparent on the record arose from the Tribunal's final order, where it was held that the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Commissioner (Appeals) was maintainable despite being filed by an unauthorized officer. The Tribunal had directed the appeal to be filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur, in accordance with Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The ld. SDR opposed the rectification, citing Section 35E(4) to support the appeal's maintainability by the adjudication authority or authorized officer. After hearing both sides, the Vice-President found that the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not maintainable as it was filed by an unauthorized officer, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Bhandara, instead of the authorized Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur as per Section 35E(2). Consequently, the Vice-President accepted the error and allowed the ROM application.

The judgment concluded by disposing of the appeal, upholding the impugned order, and rejecting the Revenue's appeal. This decision highlights the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions regarding the authority responsible for filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) under the Central Excise Act, ensuring that appeals are filed by the appropriate designated officers in accordance with the law to maintain the appeal's maintainability and validity.